Sunday, June 29, 2014

Promises, Promises (Genesis 18:1-15 & 21:1-7)



Today begins a month-long sojourn in the book of Genesis, with one Gospel break in the middle; we’ll be dipping first into the Abraham narrative arc and then the Jacob cycle.  Today's lesson begins in the middle of it all so it's a good that we catch up a little, and though it can be argued that, like everything else, it begins “in the beginning,” we'll start a bit later, where Abraham -- who is still called Abram -- hears God's call:  “Go from your country Haran and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing ... [so that] in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed. So Abram went, as the Lord had told him ...”  He’s told to leave the only home he knows, the only family he knows, and set out to God knows where ... Literally, only God knows, and God's not telling Abram.  But he goes anyway.
And this is why theologian Robert Hamerton-Kelly calls the Abram/Abraham narrative a story about faith: Abram had faith that God wouldn't let him down, that God would do right by Abram, that it all wasn't some big, divine joke, look what that idiot has done, he thought I was serious. And that wasn’t the only thing he had faith in, he had faith in a promise: that God would make of him a great nation, which God later elaborated by taking him outside and showing him the night sky, and saying “Look toward heaven and count the stars, if you are able to count them... So shall your descendants be.”  And he believed the Lord, our narrator says, and the Lord reckoned it to him as righteousness.
Now, let's get something straight: this isn't just any promise, like the promise of a thunderstorm later this week, or the promise in a pretty girl's smile ... This is The Promise, the capital-T-the and capital-P-promise promise.  It's central to the Jewish tradition, and pretty darn important in ours as well ... This is The Promise that is elaborated upon and echoed and theologized about in the entire rest of the Bible, the promise that we Christians believe we have grafted into, as Paul would put it, through our Lord Jesus Christ.
And one way to read the stories in Genesis are as tales of repeated threats to the promise, followed by the repeated overcoming of those threats, and the first one happens shortly after Abram sets out from Haran.  A famine strikes the Middle East, and Abram and Sarai head south to Egypt where Abram, to preserve his own hide, tells the Pharaoh's people that Sarai is his sister, and they, in turn, tell the Pharaoh how beautiful she is, and he, in turn, takes her into his household, and this might have been the end of The Promise right then and there except for the fact that God inflicts great plagues upon Pharaoh -- innocent though he is -- and so Pharaoh, who acts with more integrity and morals than Abram, even though he is not of the "chosen people", gives her back and runs them out of town on a rail, saying "Why didn't you TELL me she was your wife?"
Well, could it be that “Father Abraham,” patriarch of both the Jews and the Muslims, is a snivelling little weasel, willing to give away his wife’s, ah . . . virtue to save himself?  Anyway, in our passage, the promise is imperilled once again, this time by Abraham's and Sarah's extreme old age -- the way our narrator puts it is that Sarah had ceased to be  after the manner of women, which, if you think about it, is a crummy thing to say, as if the only thing that makes Sarah a woman is her ability to have children, but in that culture, in that time, that's what women were considered to be: brood mares, whose worth was only to produce an heir, and of course, to step and fetch it for her husband, which, now that I think of it, might explain why he felt he could sell his wife’s favors to the highest bidder: if Sarah was his property, then so was her sexuality.
Now.  If the promise is threatened by a simple biological fact, like old age, it's also threatened by a certain complacency on the part of the man of the tent.  Abraham has got to be feeling pretty fat and sassy ... In the years since leaving Haran, He'd done quite well for himself, thank you very much, and he could afford to while away the hot part of the day lounging in the shade on his front porch.  And though it's not that he doesn't have faith in God, you understand, he still believes that Sarah will provide him an heir, even though he did ROFL (that's roll on the floor laughing for you non-techies) when God promised it the last time,  but let’s just say he feels more secure since he had his hedged by his sleeping with Hagar and producing Ishmael, who was a fine, strapping boy, perfectly suitable to be his back-up heir.  Just in case, you understand.
But if Abraham is complacent, Sarah has a full-fledged case of the ennui's as she sits there stewing in the half-dark of the tent, thinking bitter thoughts about what a mistake it had been giving the old goat her slave in the first place, how much of a nothing she felt at being unable to give him an heir, because the thing about societal expectations, about social ostracism of "the other," is that the victims tend to buy into the nastiness as well, and she more than half-believed Hagar when she called her worthless, just as she more than half-believed the sneers and furtive whispers of the other women.
So Abraham is feeling expansive and Sarah a mite bitter when the visitors show up, all dusty and sweaty from the road, and Abraham does what he’s supposed to:  he orders Sarah to make bread, tells a slave to ready the fatted calf, and invites them to stay for supper.  And this is to be expected in the ancient Middle East honor-shame culture, where honor and shame were accrued according to what you did, because one of the biggest honor-producers was hospitality, and conversely, one of the biggest shame-bringers was its opposite—not being hospitable. And so, in the ancient Middle East, hospitality was raised to an art-form, because nobody wanted to accrue shame.
Of course, there was a reason hospitality was so important to a culture of wandering desert nomads ... in that harsh environment, it was a long way between water sources, between wells, and when a traveller got to one, they were inevitably controlled by wealthy land-owners (like Abraham) and guarded by their men.  And so a tradition of hospitality  developed partly as a mechanism for maximizing the chances of everybody's survival, because after all: tomorrow it may be you who is in need of food and water.  It was kind of like the original version of pay it forward.
So Abraham scurries around to prepare a repast, ordering Sarah and the slaves to do the work, then stands off to one side to watch them eat.  And it is at this point that things get a little bit ... strange.  The visitors ask “where is your wife Sarah?” and on the outside, Abraham is all cool nonchalant, saying “There ... In the tent,” but inside he's thinking “How do they know the name of my wife?  I've never seen them before in my life.”  And then one of them makes a promise: “I will surely return to you in due season, and your wife Sarah shall have a son,” and is it then that Abraham gets who it is he’s talking to?  Did he tumble to the big, fat hint?  Because who but the Lord can promise a child?  Who but God can open a womb?
Meanwhile, back in the tent, where there are no visitors, and it's hot as the gates of Sheol from all the sun beating down on the skins all day, Sarah has heard it all.  And even though she knows that something extraordinary is going on, that they aren't in Kansas any more, such is her state of mind that she sloughs off the whole thing: “After I have grown old, and my husband is old, shall I have pleasure?”  And she laughs a quiet little laugh—no more than a chuckle, really—at the absurdity of it all.
And now the jig is up, and the narrator gives up all pretence and calls their visitor by name, it’s the Lord, of course, who asks Abraham: “Why did Sarah laugh, and say, 'Shall I indeed bear a child, now that I am old?'  Is anything too wonderful for the LORD?” And maybe it’s my imagination, but I detect a little peevishness when God says: “At the set time I will return to you, in due season, and Sarah shall have a son.”
Note that even then, our narrator has God talking to Abraham, not Sarah, but it’s Sarah who talks back: “I did not laugh,” she says, and finally, God talks to Sarah herself:  “Yes you did laugh,” and I always get this irrational thought when I read this, that if Sarah had said “No I didn’t,” God would’ve come back with “Oh, yes you did!” and they would’ve gone round and round like children, and maybe it would’ve been that way, too, but Sarah takes the better part of valor and shuts up.
But I imagine she doesn’t stop thinking . . . I certainly wouldn’t have . . . after all the times she’s been cut out of the conversation, all the times God has reiterated the promise to Abraham, God finally talks directly to her, and it’s a rebuke.  And what was God rebuking her for?  A lack of faith: Is anything too wonderful for the Lord, God had asked, and Sarah had shown that she didn’t buy it.
And so we’re back to the matter of faith, as Robert Hamerton-Kelly pointed out: faith that God will do as he had promised, faith that indeed, nothing is too wonderful for the Lord, but really: can you blame Sarah for it?  I can’t . . . she had led a hard life, full of sorrow and disappointment, caught up in a patriarchal system that made it seem perfectly all right for her husband to give her away like a prize sheep, caught up in a system that makes her believe she’s worth nothing more, living her 90 years as a part of that system, so that she herself believed she was nothing more than chattel . . . and yet, the Lord had spoken to her, even though it was a rebuke, God had talked directly to her,  and that must’ve given her hope, and maybe just a tad more faith.
When we talk about faith, we often get all Presbyterian, we often feel the need to define it and dissect it as if it’s an insect under glass.  We say that faith is more than belief, that it is, in the words of the author of Hebrews, “faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen,” and worry that and other definitions to death . . . in fact, I think I’ve preached a sermon like that a time or two.
But I think that, in the end, it is stories that teach us the best, about things like faith and hope and love.  Because faith is a living, breathing thing, and I don’t believe that one size fits all, that it is expressed differently in each and every one of us.  As Hamerton-Kelly puts it “Definitions freeze human experience like specimens in the scientist’s bottle, while stories flow like life itself, twisting and turning, like life itself.”  Humans learn through stories, from the earliest days of our childhood, we listen to them and absorb them in their endless variety.  Whatever our religion means by faith will emerge in the twists and turns of living, both our living and those of the saints who have gone before.
So, friends, let’s take some time to tell the stories of those imperfect saints, like Abraham and Sarah and Jacob and Isaac, and let faith seep into us, like water into thirsty soil, and let it produce within us a deep gladness, a deep hope in our lives that the answer to God’s question on that long ago day, the answer to “is anything too wonderful for the Lord?” is a resounding, joyful “No!”  Amen.

Sunday, June 15, 2014

Creative Control (Genesis 1:1-2:4a)



A funny thing happened on the way to this sermon ... Last week, not having a to prepare one, thanks to the choral reading Dot put together for us, I began to look forward to this week's sermon, thinking "What a luxury."   So I went to one of my favorite commentaries which follows the lectionary, as I usually do, and read all four articles on this week’s passage, and sat back to let it percolate in my brain over the weekend.  On Tuesday, I tried to get down to brass tacks write the thing, and discovered that the commentary had the wrong passage.  It looked like the right one, it was close, but not close enough to get a cigar.  And all the prep work I did last week was wasted, and I emailed the publisher, and they said "oops, sorry!  We corrected that in the print version, but forgot to correct it in the electronic version" which, of course, being the very model of a modern major minister, I was using.
And the moral of this story is either "trust ye not in the mechanisms of Amazon.com" or " trust ye not in the handiwork of humankind,” and I'll assume it's the latter, because I like Amazon.com and my Kindle, and besides: say thank The Lord that it is God who is creating everything, and not us, 'cause we'd just mess it up.  And that is the number one affirmation of this passage: it is God who is in the creation business, not us.  It affirms it at the very start of our passage in that most famous of lines "In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth ..."  It is God who creates, not humans, and furthermore, modern scholarship has worried over the translation of these first few words like a dog over a bone, but for our purposes, all we have to establish is that God is doing the creating, and not us.
Further, God creates everything, the heavens and the earth, the whole shootin' match.  Not just Israel, not just the United States or Christians or Muslims, but everything, no special favors, no separate creations of only folks God likes.  God created—and is still creating—the whole thing.  Period, end of story
And when God began this creative effort, there was nothing here.  It was a formless void, and because formlessness is infinite and void is emptiness, what we're talking about is a whole lot of nothing, which we sometimes label chaos, but this isn't the temporary chaos of a street riot or a overenthusiastic crowd at a soccer match, but absolute nullity, nothingness beyond change, and in fact that's why philosophers and theologians have called God the prime mover, because the formless void could not have changed without an initiating nudge.
But whatever you call God,  a wind from God swept over the waters -- water is an ancient symbol of chaos -- and the wind is God's spirit, in Hebrew God's ruach, and God's ruach blew across the waters, and what began to happen?  The chaos began to disappear.  "God said let there be light," and lo!  There was light!  And God saw that the light was good, and it separated the night from the day, and with that, time was born, or at least a way of marking it, because without day and night, how can you tell?  If it always looks the same, time might be passing, but you wouldn't know it ... And there was evening and morning, the first day.
Next, God separated the chaos on earth from the chaos in the sky, creating a vault for the sky.  This reflects the ancient world-view of the sky as a dome above the earth, with the chaos of the universe heavens on the ore side.  And the stars at night were holes through which the celestial light poured, and that was enough for the second day, which, of course, one couldn't have known if God hadn't created night and day on the first day. 
Well.  The third day was a biggie, a whole lot of creatin’ going on, as God first creates the dry land, separating the waters, which in turn became the seas – and which he called good -- and then all the plants and everything tasty to munch and that you could make fritters out of, if there were anyone to make fritters, that is, which of course there wasn't, and God saw that it was good, and it was evening and morning, the third day.
And by now, you should be able to discern some pattern, some method to God's madness.  First, each day's activity builds on that of the day before.  Without the creation of time—by creating night and day—nothing else could've been done, cause it takes time to do anything.  Without the separation of the earthly from the heavenly, there would be no earth, no differentiation from the rest of the universe, and without that dome, the earth would be exposed to the heavenly glory -- which we moderns would call U.V. radiation—and life couldn't exist, which God began to create in the third time interval.
And as a matter of fact, without time, there is no order, decent or otherwise, because how can there be an order to anything without an ordering principle, which is the passage of time.  There would be no way for the dry land necessary for plants' and animals' existence to come before them because there would be no before, and no after either.  And that goes for the rest of creation, too:  God creates vegetation first so there would be oxygen -- remember, plants take in carbon dioxide and give off oxygen -- for the animals -- and us -- to breath, and munchies for the animals - and us -- to eat.
In fact, that is one of God's modus operandi, creating stuff we need before we need it, otherwise, what would be the point?  God would say "let there be humans," and one would appear and immediately suffocate or die of starvation.  God loves his creation so much -- and that includes us, of course -- that God created everything we need, and includes everyone, the whole creation, regardless of species, mineral composition, or indeed presence of a life force.  Rocks are creation too, you know  . . .  And God created it all, and saw that it all was good.
And by the way, this all goes to what God means by "good:" as God's creation builds, one thing appearing just before it's needed by the next, we can see that "good" is not just a quality—though I, for one, think water buffalo are pretty cool.  But each stage of creation is good relative to its purpose -- land is good for being a place where plants and animals live, plants are good for producing nourishment and the very air we all breath.  God creates each day’s stuff, and calls them good for a purpose: the well-being of all creation.
And by now, maybe those of a more scientific bent may begin to see an even larger pattern in our narrative, in our ancient writer’s poetic rendition of creation, and that is that it isn’t just a poetic rendition of creation, though it most certainly is that.  Here is the biblical, poetic version of the web of life: everything is dependent upon everything else, everything is linked, everything is in relationship, and that’s the subject and object of the modern science of ecology, and maybe that ancient writer isn’t so primitive after all, huh?  Maybe this ancient thinker knew a bit more than who begot who and why, didn’t he?
Anyway, who is to care for that relationship, who is to safe-guard this delicate balance of creation?  Why none other than little old us, humankind, who alone of all creation, are created in God's image, and to me, that image has nothing to do with what we look like, whether God has a biological sex or not, or whether God has two feet and a head, but that we are self-conscious, we know about existence, we know that things begin and end, because if we did not, how could we help God care for creation?  Animals have no knowledge that they exist, they are the original practitioners of in-the-moment, and they have no knowledge that they are finite, and so they couldn’t very well care for creation, could they?  How does a creature that doesn’t know it is a creature, with a birth and death and biological needs, take care of creation?  In whatever manner—whether we evolved that way or it was turned on in us, like a switch—we have a consciousness, which is required if we are to cooperate with God in the care and feeding of creation.
Because that’s what we’re called to do, folks:  dominion doesn't mean "using," it doesn't mean exploitation, it doesn’t mean taking, it means caring for one’s subjects as a good king or queen does, indeed as God, the good sovereign, does.  A good sovereign doesn't use her subjects up, a good sovereign doesn't poison their environment so they sicken and die, and that is what we are called to be: good sovereigns—in today’s egalitarian language, good managers—over God’s good creation.
Just like the rest of creation, we are intrinsically and basically good, do not ever let anyone tell you otherwise.  Fat or thin, white or black, gay or straight—you were created good.  As one of my mentors in the ministry always put it, God don’t make no trash.  But like the rest of creation, God called us good for a purpose as well . . . plants are good because they provide food and oxygen for animals, animals are good because they provide food for themselves, their waste fertilizes the ground, they provide food and transportation and companionship for us.  And in the same way, we are created good for the rest of creation, for caring for God’s good creation, not for poisoning the seas, or driving other created beings to extinction, or stripping away that very heavens that God created to protect us all from harmful radiation.
 But if Genesis speaks of creative control, of the foundation of the world and its overwhelming goodness, it also speaks of the awe-inspiring nature of God, which can be summed up in one word: love.  For God so loved the world, that he created it and sent it spinning around on its axis.  God so loved the world that God created the sun by day, to warm us and grow the plants that feed us, and provide shade and beauty and oxygen.  God so loved the world that he created the great sea monsters to astound and amaze us, and the tiniest shrimp and krill so that it is teeming with life.  And God so loved us that God sent his only begotten son to redeem us and show us the way of love and beauty and righteousness, of right relation with the amazing, loving creator of us all.  Amen.